Natures rules change with the wind, GIA. That's why religious rules are forced to accommodate, or be relegated to the past. A strategy being successful at one time should not be taken to indicate that it will always and forever be, no matter whatever else changes, successful.

(January 11, 2021 at 4:21 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Natures rules change with the wind, GIA.  That's why religious rules are forced to accommodate, or be relegated to the past.   A strategy being successful at one time should not be taken to indicate that it will always and forever be, no matter whatever else changes, successful.

Wise words, your last.

Your first, not so much.

But I hesitate to judge such a wise person and humbly ask; which rule you are speaking of?

The wind may change, but the natural forces and the rules that guide them are never ending, or near enough.

Regards
DL

Change is a constant in nature, and, additionally, there's no natural rule (changing or unchanging) that man is bound to respect. Adapting to new situations that require new tools is kindof our bag. Our religions traditions reflect that.

Most people put something other than country first. Putting something above country is not treason. The difficulty is that some people put things not of this world before the things of this world. That has the potential for great harm as those things cannot be confirmed or constrained.

As to taxes, I haven't dived very deeply into it, but I suspect many of the objections to church exemption, if generally applied, would harm a great many beneficial organizations. We all pay for things that don't personally benefit us. That's a part of the social contract. A tax or subsidy not benefitting us directly is not a good argument for its removal.

It likely wouldn't harm those organizations - but, if it did...thorough consideration of that can be written into law.

The rcc got billions of dollars in covid relief that they have used to settle court ordered restitution, and buy real estate with. They also run daycares.

Frankly, the status of tax exemptions doesn't even seem relevant to the church - as they'll cut services first right now even as they sit like ticks on a torrent of breaks and funding. It's a disingenuous mobsters argument that we only believe because, deep down, we know that they're mobsters and that they'll do it. They'll prove it at our earliest convenience.

(January 12, 2021 at 11:51 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: It likely wouldn't harm those organizations - but, if it did...thorough consideration of that can be written into law.

The rcc got billions of dollars in covid relief that they have used to settle court ordered restitution, and buy real estate with.  They also run daycares.

Frankly, the status of tax exemptions doesn't even seem relevant to the church - as they'll cut services first right now even as they sit like ticks on a torrent of breaks and funding.  It's a disingenuous mobsters argument that we only believe because, deep down, we know that they're mobsters and that they'll do it.  They'll prove it at our earliest convenience.

Right here in this thread we've had someone object that they shouldn't be forced to subsidize the church because the benefit does not go to things they value. I defy you to tell me that if that standard were applied to all 501(c)3 organizations, most of them would not be impacted.

The problem isn't whether the exemption uniquely benefits churches, but whether the objections to the exemption uniquely single out the church. Those that have been coherently argued often do not. Much of the opposition to the tax exemption of churches is little more than unfocused ranting.

(January 12, 2021 at 11:59 am)Angrboda Wrote:

(January 12, 2021 at 11:51 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: It likely wouldn't harm those organizations - but, if it did...thorough consideration of that can be written into law.

The rcc got billions of dollars in covid relief that they have used to settle court ordered restitution, and buy real estate with.  They also run daycares.

Frankly, the status of tax exemptions doesn't even seem relevant to the church - as they'll cut services first right now even as they sit like ticks on a torrent of breaks and funding.  It's a disingenuous mobsters argument that we only believe because, deep down, we know that they're mobsters and that they'll do it.  They'll prove it at our earliest convenience.

Right here in this thread we've had someone object that they shouldn't be forced to subsidize the church because the benefit does not go to things they value.  I defy you to tell me that if that standard were applied to all 501©3 organizations, many of them would not pass, perhaps all.

I would expect most c3s to be complaint, it is the character of an offending set of c3s, not the character of the entire designation itself, that's problematic.  For those that arent (and it would usually be on a technicality of paperwork - that's the number one issue) there's a process to remedy compliance.

I've been working for or organizing c3s for a decade now - never once had a compliance issue.  It's not hard to be compliant.

I would suggest, again, that we can seperate the daycares from the criminal enterprises..and that, if we absolutely can't...perhaps daycares run by criminal enterprises should be shut down, anyway?

(January 12, 2021 at 12:05 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(January 12, 2021 at 11:59 am)Angrboda Wrote: Right here in this thread we've had someone object that they shouldn't be forced to subsidize the church because the benefit does not go to things they value.  I defy you to tell me that if that standard were applied to all 501©3 organizations, many of them would not pass, perhaps all.

I would expect most c3s to be complaint, it is the character of an offending set of c3s, not the character of the entire designation itself, that's problematic.  For those that arent (and it would usually be on a technicality of paperwork - that's the number one issue) there's a process to remedy compliance.

I've been working for or organizing c3s for a decade now - never once had a compliance issue.  It's not hard to be compliant.

I would suggest, again, that we can seperate the daycares from the criminal enterprises..and that, if we absolutely can't...perhaps daycares run by criminal enterprises should be shut down, anyway?

You're arguing that most 501c3's personally benefit the Greatest I Am or something he values? That's laughable.

Let's ask the question in a very limited form. At what point could a state declare that an organization is a credible danger to children?

If there is a scale, and an organization goes over the level of harm or potential harm that we accept in the case of children....how do we, then, justify subsidizing that organization. Even more specifically, how do we justify subsiding that organization to the extent that we subsidize those organizations now when so much more direct funding is very urgently and transparently required to the citizens which any subsidy to a church is meant to service?

If we need daycares, and the only daycares in town truly are daycares that molest children or redistribute their funds to pay off claimants or hide offenders - if there's no other vendor for that service...that suggests a more prudent use of those recovered funds.

Namely, building daycares.

---

(January 12, 2021 at 12:10 pm)Angrboda Wrote: You're arguing that most 501c3's personally benefit the Greatest I Am or something he values?  That's laughable.

Not at all, lol.  His hearts in the right place, his question is relevant and serious - but his positions or statements on these things could be improved - and I'm sure that's part of why he interacts with us.

(January 12, 2021 at 12:17 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(January 12, 2021 at 12:10 pm)Angrboda Wrote: You're arguing that most 501c3's personally benefit the Greatest I Am or something he values?  That's laughable.

Not at all, lol.  His hearts in the right place, his question is relevant and serious - but his positions or statements on these things could be improved - and I'm sure that's part of why he interact with us.

Then you have just refuted yourself. Such an objection would do harm to other 501c3's. The only question is what proportion of the objections to the church's subsidy would do likewise. You've in no way proven that only a small minority do, much less that none do.